User talk:Abu badali/Archive4

Some of the most active free content evangelists from Wikipedia talk:Fair use celebrate their recent achievements in a meeting at the last Wikimania. An unidentified user (top right), following a highly fashionable trend, took the opportunity to call user Abu Badali (left) a stalker. "Accusing him of copyright paranoia is simply no longer funny", he explains. PHOTO: YORCK/José de Ribeira

Archive

1. From Apr 1 2004 to Aug 21 2006
2. From Aug 21 2006 to Oct 31 2006
3. From Oct 31 2006 to Feb 28 2007

Image deletions

I've noticed you putting up a few images for speedy deletion (no source, copyright holder, that kind of thing) with complex reasons. Speedy deletion really isn't meant to handle that kind of request. If no source / copyright holder is given at all, or if no fair use rationale is provided, that's one thing. But if they're provided and you think they should be deleted anyway, the best thing is to go to WP:IFD. Mangojuice^talk 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide examples so I'm sure I understand which cases you mean? I'm not saying what you saying is baseless, I just want to better know what kind of deletion nominations you think are unsuitable. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Humm, just noticed ypu reverted a nomination here Image:SamWinchester.jpg, do you think it's a complex issue when the site given as source explicitly claims it doesn't owns the image's copyrights? First step is to remove the misleading source info, second step is to tag image as no source. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of them. I deleted another one anyway (wrestling image, you were point-by-point refuting the fair use criteria... but it also had no source info other than WWE.com. Maybe that promo image should be deleted, but not because of the source, honestly. It's more because we shouldn't use a promo image for that purpose, it makes more sense to use a screenshot and comment on its contents at the same time. If nothing was listed for a source, I would have deleted it even though I would have known the source could be found.. basically, people just aren't very responsive on that issue. The source given was probably the (immediate) source of the image, though, so, basically, the uploader satisfied the requirements and should have the chance to let the community decide. The CSD no-source criterion is there to eliminate large classes of abandoned contributions, not to give the idea that flawless source information must exist for every image. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's more because we shouldn't use a promo image for that purpose". No, the point is that, without a valid source, we can't be sure that image is really a promo image. Fansites (like the one given as "immediate source" for this image) are not a source for promotional material at all. They rarely have the license to use the images they use (engaging in copyright violation) let alone to redistribute the images for others to use.

The image is likely from CW Television, as one can see by its watermark (bottom right). A quick look at CW's terms of service shows that their images are not promotional at all: "Using any Material on any other web site or networked computer environment is prohibited."[1].

This image is one more case of "I found it on the Internet, so it must be promotional". Do each of those images on Wikipedia go through ifd, no matter how invalid the source info is?

Or to make things simpler... If I see an image whose source information is cleary bogus (like a fansite), can I remove this invalid information?

Or maybe... If I see an image tagged as promotional but with no info on when/where was it released as promotional, may I remove the invalid licensing tag? Does it helps if the image's copyright holder has a historic of forbidding such uses of such images?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your points. I view the no source/no license/no copyright holder speedy deletion criteria as requests that uploaders give us some basic information so that others don't have to do all the work... and if they don't, we can delete the images without trying to fix the issue. If they do what they're supposed to, their uploads could still be deleted but at least we should let someone volunteer to fix the issue first, which means posting it at IFD: to me, it's an issue of fairness and being welcoming. Don't worry about a deletion request at IFD not going through: it will, they almost always do if there's any kind of reason, and usually without any debate. I myself just feel more comfortable not using speedy deletion where it doesn't strictly apply. As to this image, I'm going to delete it now that the issues are all clear. Mangojuice^talk 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the Lufthansa image I actually disagree with you about: that needs debate, it's sufficiently unique and possibly important that someone may know where it came from if it's posted on IFD. Mangojuice^talk 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jenny Lind signature: it's clearly public domain, she died over 100 years ago. Sorry, but the reason we worry about source is so we can verify if an image is free. If that one should be deleted, someone will have to do better on saying why. Mangojuice^talk 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Any de-speedy you think was wrong, feel free to take it to IFD. I don't care to debate them any further, I made these judgements quickly while clearing out a backlogged category almost 3 weeks old that wasn't even showing on CAT:CSD anymore. If you think my general approach is wrong, point me to a policy discussion that says so. As for my objection -- a lot of admins may speedy delete non-obvious images but some won't, so I recommend sending non-obvious ones to IFD: take it or leave it. Mangojuice^talk 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuggets image deleted. Mangojuice^talk 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pageant titleholder bio

I've removed the request for free images image form this page. If you look at step for of the upload instructions you get when you follow the links from that image you will see why that doesn't work with the current system. At the moment there doesn't seem to be a work around but I am still thinking about it. It is ceritanly something I would like to be able to do.Geni 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Cavett.jpg

This image is of a bookcover which fall under different Wikipedia standards than promotional photos. The publisher is credited on the image's page. Please explain why you are contesting the use of this book cover.

--Wowaconia 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it was being used to illustrate the article on the person and not the book.Geni 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why call for its deletion instead of moving it down to the segment about the book?

--Wowaconia 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The "segment about the book" was only added after the image use has been contested. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The book was referenced in the article as its source and I changed the prose but mention of the book was already there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Cavett&oldid=112085745#References . The image was not in violation of fair use its placement was, why call for its deletion instead of improving the article and moving the photo?

--Wowaconia 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

This image states it's promotional, however it sources a fan-wiki, which then sources a fan site, I believe that it is incorrectly licensed.. is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Leah Dizon photo

I have asked around on Flickr, there was one user that had many photos of her, but he could not change the license of them. I'll look later (though there is a photo of her as the BSD Devil I want to use). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems your test failed, since a few days after I saw you made your edit, someone went and replaced the image with a fair use photo. I'll have some d00ds take pics of her when they go to car shows and stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Full House image

I uploaded the same-looking image that you tagged, but from a different website this time. It has a different name of course, check it out → Image:FullHousecast.jpg. I linked the source directly to the image white page. I hope everything is okay now. QuasyBoy 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would getting an image from an official website be okay. But the thing is Full House is a cancelled TV series, and I don't think there is an "official website" out there on the series. And I don't think you would want an image from a fansite. QuasyBoy 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A promotional image released from the Warner Bros. Televison company from an "official website" (If one would exist). Would be okay right ? QuasyBoy 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfree image

Delete this image it's unfree and unauthorized for being here. thumb|right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.41.237 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I can't delete it, as I'm not an admin. I'll take a look on how the image is used and, if it seems to be somehow against or policy, I'll take the necessary steps. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --201.79.41.237 13:44

User talk:Jkelly

No need to apologise. Believe me, much less relevant stuff often winds up on that page, and I don't mind in the least; it being, well, a wiki and all. I had responded, to say much the same thing. As it turns out, we seem to have an example to illustrate the point. Jkelly 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Riya Book.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Riya Book.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --NAHID 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, NAHID. I have only uploaded a lower resolution version of this image. You may want to contact User:Aditya Kabir (the original uploade) about this image. Indeed, I have once tagged this image as replaceable fair use, but some user (wrongly) removed the tag right after. You may want to read the discussions. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Saw IV.jpg

You can delete the image if you want. As long as the poster is up on the Saw IV page, I don't really care if you delete the poster. Image:Saw IV Teaser poster-1-.jpg Enter Movie 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah, who cares if you think it is not fair use. Orphanized it. (Image:Joe-pa-sports-illustrated-2005-cover.jpg)

Bah, get a life shh...of course I'm kidding. A rude kidding. It is sad that you have to do the images for deletion process. You have way too much time on your hands. The odds of me being the copyright holder is very very slim. Forget wikiquette and just be rude. Just orphanized on questionable "fair use" images such as magazine covers that don't relate to a subject. You're informing me an upload that I did over a year ago. No need to go all the time consuming images for deletion. Be a rebel and an orphan image bot. On your user page: I'm a self-described-self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor. Good luck with the 1.6 million pages of going through... --J. Nguyen 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Chandrasekhar image

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page about the image. I don't understand how one can obtain a free picture of a guy who died 11 years ago. Thanks. Dr.K. 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, (may I call you Abu? it's been so often that we talked lately that we must in the end as a minimum be on a first name basis!), anyway, this time you did your homework well and I respect that. If faced with this kind of facts we must alter the strategy. Good research stands on its own merits and you did well. So I would like to ask you, if I reduce the image size by 70, 50 whatever percentage could that help? I gave MangoJuice the link last time and there is a special category for reduced images. Could you let me know? BTW from last time we had a bit of a debate, and I want to let you know that after the first impressions I have come to respect your capable contributions here. Take care. Dr.K. 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu, thank you very much for your advice and your kind comments. Indeed I accept your well made argument that we should not compete with the original website. However given that the scientist is dead and pictures are no longer available, I will experiment with some downsizing. If you find it acceptable then it would be ok, if not then it's over. Thanks again. Tasos. (Dr.K. 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Is this ok now? It looks grainy to me. Let me know. Thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

This time is ok I think. Dr.K. 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Promotional" mis-tagging

You're sort-of preaching to the choir; this category is a mess (if I recall, the Wikipedia:Signpost quoted me on that quite a while ago). In theory, however, it should not matter whether or not media is actually "promotional" or not, because there is nothing about something having "an implicit license to reproduce [but not modify]" that should matter in terms of en:'s Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy; the claim ("rationale"), in theory, needs to be just as compelling for this material as it does for any other unfree content. Of course, we are substantially less likely to get contacted by an irked copyright holder if the media really is promotional, but this should be beside the point. In any case, as I am sure you are aware, the board is doing some thinking about the role of unfree media on the various projects, and it may be that we will get some direction on the larger issue at some point in the not-too-distant future. Jkelly 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To take the last point first, you're quite right that we need to take responsibility for cleaning up our messes, and not wait around for some statement from the Board that will magically make problems go away. Your main point is something that we haven't really explored in all of the discussion about unfree media at en:. Most people know, I think, that we should immediately delete any media that comes from stock photo providers, because the commercial impact is very easy to show. Some people are clear that we shouldn't be using media from information content providers, like CNN, AP, or the BBC, because it is difficult to show that our use is transformative and there is an argument that their value is being similarly impacted. Your position is that other websites depend upon having traffic driven to them, and our use may impact that traffic. I have some sympathy for that argument, but it immediately leads to some very big questions, which I would sum up as "should we [uploaders] be worried about Castle Rock vs. Carol Publishing Group"? -- it is not obvious to me why our image use is significantly different than our publishing of text about other people's intellectual property. I think that we would all agree that we are not in the business of entertainment, but instead that we are offering educational material about our subjects, and our use is in that spirit. If our policy is actually followed, this will be immediately obvious; our claim should be so compelling that even the copyright holder wouldn't disagree with it. In practice we have not yet found a very good way to help users make sure that their uploads are following policy. I therefore suggest that the best way forward in cleanup is to do more or less what we do already -- identify any ways in which individual files may fail policy and tag them for deletion, and take questions about use to discussion forums (like talk pages, project pages, or IfD). All of that said, and I've said quite a lot, we need to be clear on what policy actually is -- replaceability has become quite misunderstood. The point with replaceability should not be "Would it be relatively easy to get a freely licensed image", but, instead, "Is this image absolutely irreplaceable for the article" whether by some other image, text, a diagram, etc. This is precisely where we could use some leadership on the issue, because this makes many users unhappy, and will not be agreed with merely through repetition, reminders of our mission, or pointers to the various (fascinating through repugnant) reuse of our material that is already happening. Jkelly 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Cater Image

Please note, removal tag has been disputed on image page, and comments added to talk page in supporting a keep Hackajar 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Viguerie Image

Image:Richard viguerie.jpg is being contested as an invalid image. Please review talk page for explination. Hackajar 12:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg

Thank for messaging me. Please take care to see Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg where both source and license are provided, and this, since the document's upload. Thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no license tag. Please, pick one at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Let me know if you need any help. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take care to see Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg where both source and license are provided, and this, since the document's upload. Honnestly look, thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Captain Scarlet, are you referring to the {{WP Trains fair use}} tag, that says in bold letters "Warning: This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag'"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honnestly, aren't you a big boy that can dump in the Fair use template in it? You're bothering me, for somehting you can do yourself? and no i didn't notice because there's no point, it says Fair Use and it is, if it's no appropriate add a fair use tag yourself and no need to message me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only about "dumping a fair use template in it". I wouldn't be able to write a valid fair use rationale explaining how the use of this image on SNCF Class X 4900 is ok with each of the items on WP:FUC. This isn't something I can do by myself. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you can't copy paste. Since you've read {{WP Trains fair use}} you must know what you claim not to being able to do ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if my observations are not welcome but might it have been easier if Captain scarlet would have simply added an appropriate tag once this had been brought to his attention. There seems to be little point in a continuing debate about this as I would suggest that adding copyright tags are best left to the original uploader as they will have the best idea as to how the image meets the fair use requirements. Adambro 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just put in the god damn template you want there to be ! Adambro, should I create a new account for you to stop contacting me, i have politely expressed my feelings towards and i repeat, whatever your opinion, you are not welcome on my talkpage. Abu, you clearly know what template should be in there, put it in according to all the correct and appropriate information already provided without wasting my time with bureaucratic crap you can do yourself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

and this {{Restricted use}}, hard to copy-paste in there?? I don't think so, do it yourself next time. 08:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs)

Arrest.svg

Thanks for your addition to Template:Law-enforcement-stub - I dig it. Could probably double as an icon for the BDSM folks as well:) Bobanny 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Imagevio

I reverted you. Don't add it back again. The imagevio tag is for identifying images that are claimed to be free but which are actually copyrighted by someone else. The image is identified as copyrighted, the copyright holder is identified, and a fair use claim has been made. If you dispute it, there are proper channels, namely WP:IFD, but that's where this is going to have to go. The imagevio tag is NOT for general use to try to delete any fair use image you want deleted. Mangojuice^talk 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you said "Please, understand that "historically significant photo" are "generally permitted under fair use" when used in an article or section about the photo itself." I do understand that, actually, and there were a number of image deletions I got involved with where that was the specific issue. (I can dig out the specific instance if you're interested.) At the time, I actually asked Jimbo about his thoughts on the issue because the guidelines seemed to contradict one another. His response (which I can also dig out if you're interested) was that he didn't see a big deal in using a "historical use" photo without specifically discussing the photo, just as long as the photo is really irreproducible. In the batch of debates that came up at that time, several of the images were deleted, and this one may be as well, but the issue was controversial and attracted a lot of debate for an IFD, so it needs a process where open discussion can take place. However, I do really think, based on my experience on this issue, that a photo of him at some significant moment, like winning the Nobel Prize, would likely be kept. Mangojuice^talk 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My memory was a little fuzzy. Here's a diff of my own edit, but Jimbo's relevant response is in the same section: [2]. He actually sets out some boundaries that are kind of obvious: on the one hand, any random picture of a very famous dead person like Elvis should definitely not be considered irreplacable. But on the other hand, he refutes the idea that the photo itself has to be significant, although he prefers to give the example of a depiction of an event in an article about that event, rather than a famous person that wasn't photographed very much. I hear what you're saying about replacability being only one concern, but there's a difference between having an argument against an image and it being necessary to delete that image. Best, Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think the image I suggested finding would be appropriate for Wikipedia, yes. The article on Chandreskhar isn't just about him winnng the Nobel Prize, but that event is quite important to the subject, so it's pretty close to the kind of use Jimbo endorses. Plus, Jimbo's opinion isn't the only thing that matters: it also seems quite reasonable to me. Mangojuice^talk 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CV should only be used for images that are supposedly free but are actually copyrighted. Still, there does seem to be a process duplication going on somewhere, because we also have WP:PUI. But for images that are marked as copyrighted, neither one is really appropriate, but rather, WP:IFD should be used. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit of a hole in our procedures, I'll see what I can do to fix it up. Really, I don't see WP:CP handling images being a good idea when we have both WP:PUI and WP:IFD. Mangojuice^talk 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lawro.jpg

Since you are evidently confident that a free image of Mark Lawrenson could be reasonably be found, can you please find one, instead of merely removing the image from the page? Where can one be found, please?

In the (likely misplaced) anticipation that you have a clue what you're talking about, I've reinstated the 'fair use' image, until you can demonstrate that a free one can be found, reasonably or otherwise. jamesgibbon 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove musical artist discography, not images?

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Bogus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Though most of musical artists CD, DVD images are permitted, why are B'z, Jun Shibata album covers removed? X Japan (see X Japan discography), Glay (see Glay discography) and Dir en grey (see Dir en grey discography) etc album covers are not removed. Why are they no problems? Removed personal attack --Hatto 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on an article for me?

An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Antwort

It's been several days since you posted your last message on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?, but I want to let you know that I've replied to it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali. Thought you should know. Megapixie 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Naomi Campbell pics

I bet the blurry one is legitimately CC-licensed. From the rest of the pictures, it looks like he went to this event and sat pretty far away. I imagine he downloaded some professional photos (including the good naomi campbell one) and stuck them in the flickr set to let other people know what was going on... asking on flickr would probably be a good solution. Calliopejen 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the KLF page

Your take on what is and is not acceptable for photos is an interesting one. I therefor invite you to look at the article for the rock group The KLF. Though the picture used in the infobox does not seem to be acceptable under your standards it was included when the article got featured article status. Doesn't the existance of this photo prove that your take on fair use is mistaken?

--Wowaconia 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no action on Image:The KLF - Why Sheep?.jpg I see.

The page itself says "The previous version(s) of this image are copyrighted and were used under a claim of fair use. In accordance with the Wikipedia fair use policy, a smaller or lower quality version, or a freely-licensed replacement, has been uploaded in their place." The KLF aren't even dead or broken up and the page says "given the band's very low number of public appearances [a free image] is unlikely to be found".

By your interpretation this image shouldn't even exist in wikipedia, but instead its part of a featured article.

--Wowaconia 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Raam Punjabi

Thank you for your message. But why do you think that this image fails to meet the fair use criterion? Meursault2004 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you for your explanation. I think the image can be deleted and we can search for a free picture of him. Meursault2004 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Own block

I've seen some admins misusing the "tools" lately, but this is the first time I see one really shot his own foot. :) --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. -- Zanimum 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)